Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Christianity noticeboard)
Recent changes of Christianity-related talkpages
List of abbreviations (help):
D
Edit made at Wikidata
r
Edit flagged by ORES
N
New page
m
Minor edit
b
Bot edit
(±123)
Page byte size change

15 August 2024


Alerts for Christianity-related articles

Today's featured articles

Today's featured article requests

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(4 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Good topic candidates

Featured article reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(7 more...)


Christianity Deletion list


Christianity

edit

Massoud Massoud

edit
Massoud Massoud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't find that he meets the notability policy; I couldn't find any sources. فيصل (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Yatim

edit
Michel Yatim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't find that he meets the notability policy; I couldn't find any sources. فيصل (talk) 03:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncovering the Litanies (Podcast)

edit
Uncovering the Litanies (Podcast) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable podcast. No significant coverage. Fails GNG. C F A 💬 02:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, is "Spotify for Podcasters" even RS? Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Fenwick (bishop)

edit
John Fenwick (bishop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are currently primary, and much of the content is currently unsupported by sources. WP:PRIMARY applies here: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." All sources I can locate appear to be about specific negative incidents involving the subject and are not particularly helpful for creating a BLP. AusLondonder (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and England. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1) No evidence of WP:BEFORE search, and it's pretty obvious one was not done because 1, 2, 3 and other search engine results show plenty of mentions, over time, in precisely the ways you'd expect a bishop presiding over an area to be mentioned. 2) Per the relevant SNG, WP:BISHOPS, Anglican community bishops are presumptively notable, and nothing in the nomination statement even attempts to rebut it (and such attempts would fail anyways per 1). Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you not bother reading my rationale where I made clear I had searched for sources? WP:BISHOPS is complete rubbish, it has no community consensus behind it but nonetheless it claims to apply "major Christian denominations" such as the Anglican Communion of which the Free Church of England with about 10 churches is obviously not. By the way, the sources you have provided are very poor. They do not contribute to notability per WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The third source for example is an article about the appointment of another person which features a brief quote from Fenwick. How could an experienced editor such as yourself think that establishes notability? AusLondonder (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you're right--there was a trivial mention of effort without specifics. Next time, I'd recommend you not bury the discussion of any efforts after a discussion of irrelevant policy. PRIMARY only matters if there are no secondary sources on which an article can be written, so by wording your nomination the way that you did, I managed to miss that you'd done any work of the sort, and, finding plenty of sources myself, AGF'ed to the point that I failed to go back and read closely to see if there were later, contradictory arguments. You can't say "There are only primary sources!" and "The secondary sources I found were rubbish!" because if the second were true, the first wouldn't bear mentioning.
    Per WP:BISHOPS, bishops presiding over a large enough area among recognized denominations are presumed notable. Presumed notable means that you have to demonstrate that notability does not exist and/or that he is not covered by that SNG. You are using the wrong standard to evaluate the coverage--it doesn't have to be in depth and detail about Fenwick as a person. It demonstrates coverage of Fenwick as the holder of an appropriate ecclesiastical appointment which was the entire point of my results show plenty of mentions, over time, in precisely the ways you'd expect a bishop presiding over an area to be mentioned statement. You want to argue that the Free Church of England consecrates bishops in a way inconsistent with BISHOPS? Super, feel free to.
    It is entirely possible that there's enough coverage of Fenwick to meet GNG, but that's not required, which is why I didn't start out by arguing it. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing Let's look at some additional sources:
    JoEH review of a 2004 book authored by Fenwick published by T&T Clark appearing in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. That's one source contributing to notability under WP:AUTHOR. Looks like it also may have been published by A&C Black as ISBN 9780567084330.
    Since this is Paywalled and I have access, the review is ~530 words by a Grayson Carter of Fuller Seminary Arizona, decidedly mixed, concluding, "Though Fenwick is to be commended for producing a most detailed account of the history of the FCE, had his research been more comprehensive (including material published in this JOURNAL), much of the unfortunate confusion contained in his narrative could have been avoided." Writing a scholarly book about his own splinter denomination to mixed reviews? I'm not sure I can think of a more bishop-of-an-offshoot-Anglican-church thing. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like he also had a 1995 book Worship in Transition: The Twentieth Century Liturgical Movement published by Bloomsbury, ISBN 9781441152350.
    Gorgias Press has some other works of his which appear to be specialized academic works. More investigation needed to see if they are themselves reviewed or cited.
    Telegraph article from 2021, definitely independent RS and contributes to basic notability, even absent his status as a bishop, although it clearly does verify that.
    this claims to be a reprint of a published letter to The Daily Telegraph in 2017. I haven't been able to find it on the website, but newspapers.com should be able to verify it, I expect. Getting a letter published as one of a few ecclesiastical authors in a national publication is entirely commensurate with clergy notability.
So even if we entirely discount the BISHOPS argument, there's enough here to meet GNG/ANYBIO, and probably AUTHOR too. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please could the person who has nominated this article for deletion kindly explain their rationale, so others can understand and agree or give alternative views? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinlloydsmith (talk • contribs) 07:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfax Community Church

edit
Fairfax Community Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A run-of-the-mill large church. No secondary coverage in the article, and none found. Just called "Fairfax Church" now, which makes searching difficult. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely no proper notable coverage found in my search online. User:R.schneider101 01:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCHD-CA

edit
KCHD-CA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KMAH-LP

edit
KMAH-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time dilation creationism

edit
Time dilation creationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFRINGE. I find no notice of this by WP:FRIND sources. Only creationists seem interested enough to comment. Wikipedia really is WP:NOT for discussing every flight-of-fancy that a creationist has about how to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific facts. jps (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of meeting notability guidelines, which would be provided by significant coverage in non-crackpot sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:FRINGE creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Nom admits this is a religious, not scientific topic, and yet proposes to apply scientific article criteria to it, making this nomination completely erroneous and hence eligible for speedy keep per SK#3. The religious sources are sufficient and appropriate (independent, etc.) for GNG to be satisfied. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an absurd argument. Creationists routinely present their arguments as 'scientific', and are clearly doing so in this particular instance. Just read the sources cited. Pseudoscience does not cease to be pseudoscience when promoted to support religious faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they do. And when they're doing so on a religious basis, religious rules apply, not FRINGE. Sorry if you don't like the guideline, but I didn't write it. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant section in WP:FRINGE makes absolutely clear that it is referring to Notable perspectives and states the fact that claims from [e.g. creationist] perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. The article presents zero evidence that either mainstream theologians nor mainstream scientists have even heard of this 'perspective', never mind bothered trying to address it. The only non-creationist source currently cited in the article doesn't even bother to describe the 'perspective' in any detail, instead mentioning "time dilation" in passing in a single sentence in a section on "Examples of Pseudoscience". [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article? In what way is this article describing the creation of the world on a purely religious basis? Are you claiming that Russell Humphreys believes that time dilation is some sort of theological allegory?! jps (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the above, the suggestion that the religious sources being cited are 'independent' is both questionable and irrelevant, since they clearly aren't reliable sources for anything but the beliefs of their own authors regarding an obscure theory. Nothing is cited that establishes that this particular pseudoscientific hypothesis is even significant within creationism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I stripped out the science WP templates from the talk page as being non-relevant. The stub template was changed from cosmology to creationism. Beyond that I have no particular preference; it's pure pseudoscience so astronomy isn't all that relevant. Praemonitus (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability in RS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should be kept in mind that the primary focus of the article is not scientific, but religious. It is a theological doctrine more than serious science. Thus it should be viewed with the criteria of a religious article. I did not intend to promote this thing when creating the article and I did not intend to promote fringe theories, but I thought that the article should be there to represent different religious doctrines. And as someone else already noted, WP:FRINGE reads: creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Thus the point of the original deletion request does not seem to be valid. As a religious doctrine, there seems to be just enough coverage for it. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to Jclemens above. No evidence has been provided that this perspective/doctrine has been "disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists". Or discussed in any detail by non-creationist sources at all. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you don't understand what is religious and what is not is not our responsibility. Science is testable under controlled, repeatable conditions; this is not. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you have just discovered pseudoscience. As for what is or isn't religious, I have a degree in anthropology, and accordingly could write an entire dissertation on why trying to divide things into the religious and the non-religious is a fools errand. Fortunately though, that is unnecessary, since Wikipedia doesn't take such questions into account when dismissing as non-notable obscure proposals regarding time dilation and the origins of the universe only discussed in unreliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You realize you just ceded the point that this is a religious topic, right? That makes your critique of the sources as "crackpot" irrelevant and voids your !vote: the sources in the article may not be appropriate for a scientific discourse, but there's nothing obviously wrong with them as religious sources. Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis are reliable sources--torchbearers, really--for the literalist Genesis/YEC religious perspective, so notability is met unless this is entirely a non-religious topic, which you have just ceded you cannot definitively assess. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You now seem to be claiming that the mere fact that Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis have written about something makes it inherently notable. That is utterly absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Religious content can be crackpot. For example, this content. jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the complete lack of coverage in non-creationist sources, and the lack of evidence that this is even significant to creationism, there is nothing to move. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. If there's verifiable content--and there is--an appropriate merger is a perfectly valid ATD. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "verifiable content" is there? The fantasies of Young Earth Creationists that no one else even bothers to notice? jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is literally a single WP:RS. That means no significant coverage, as in not notable, and that in fact it’s . We have long used WP:FRINGE to get rid of essays and pages that are little more than gee-whiz trivial nonsense, hey look at this kooky little idea. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am sorry if I misjudged the worthiness of the topic to be on Wikipedia when I created it, I did not intend to promote fringe theories. If I was wrong, then it can just be deleted. I thought that since it is a religious topic and I was able to find multiple religious sources about it, then it could be worth its own article, but I may have been mistaken about their worthiness on such a topic. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to apologize. WP:FRINGE is hard to get right especially as there are often sources that show up about fringe topics which superficially look reasonable (and might be in less, let's say, controversial areas). The general principle that I find works well is that we can have articles on fringe subjects when they are noticed by people who are not convinced that the fringe idea in question is necessarily correct, but where it gets confusing is when you have internecine disputes among fringe claimants so it looks like you have "independent analysis" in the sources when instead you are just looking at different flavors of fringe. Keeping topics out of Wikipedia for which sourcing cannot follow the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding is one of the better solutions we've arrived at to keep the integrity of the reference work high. The alternative is a free-for-all. jps (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that this isn't FRINGE. It's religious. It has "creationism" right there in the title. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its fringe, even for creationism. And it isn't notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research—denialist histories, for example—should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic. Emphasis mine. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've already read that. And quoted it above. Where I pointed out that "mainstream theologians and scientists" have said absolutely nothing on this topic. Which is why it is fringe, why it isn't notable, and why an appropriate encyclopaedic article cannot be written. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It bases articles on secondary sources, removed from the subject itself. Not on a few primary sources arguing the toss about pseudoscientific hokum amongst themselves. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability requirements. Notability is demonstrated through coverage in sources independent of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let it go, man. Your ridiculous misunderstanding is clearly not the consensus understanding of our community. If you want to change our rules, start a conversation elsewhere. jps (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: While fringe hypotheses can be notable, there isn't enough coverage of this one in WP:RS to warrant a separate article. Any content from this article that's up to standard should be merged/transcluded into one of the other articles on creationism. 0xchase (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies and mention it by name there since the it is the "relativistic effects" mentioned. This comes up in teaching astronomy classes and there is a source:
Bobrowsky, Matthew (2005). "Dealing with Disbelieving Students on Issues of Evolutionary Processes and Long Time Scales". Astronomy Education Review. 4 (1): 95–118. doi:10.3847/AER2005007.
StarryGrandma (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Wyatt

edit
Ron Wyatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ron Wyatt was, according to fellow Christian fundamentalists, a fraud. But we can't really source that because no reliable source has covered it. The lack of interest from reality-based sources extends to everything else about the man. While the article has superficial referenciness, the sources cited fail to meet the Wikipedia standards of reliability and independence.This is a squarely WP:FRINGE topic that needs robust sourcing to maintain a solidly reality-based perspective.

There's a source represented as "andrews.edu" but in fact a monograph published in the Adventist Review (Wyatt was a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church). We have an article on "maintaining creationist integrity" - a horse that bolted so long ago that was long since rendered into glue - by Ken Ham and others, on the AiG website, an obviously unreliable source for anything even tangentially connected to reality. We have allthatsinteresting.com, which takes itself moderately seriously but largely draws on the same creationist argumentation as above.

I really don't think we can defend having an article on a pseudoarchaeologist when we can't even source the fact that he was a pseudoarchaeologist. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cline, Eric H. (2007). From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible. National Geographic. two short paragraphs on Ark and capture by Kurdish separatists in a popular work on biblical archaeology.
  • Seesengood, Robert Paul (2016). The Bible in Motion. De Gruyter. pp. 216–218. description of a 2006 documentary Testimony of the Ark, marginally useful
  • Danforth, Loring M. (2016). "Finding Science in the Quran". Crossing the Kingdom: Portraits of Saudi Arabia. p. 131. ticks the pseudoarchaeologist box if needed, just a short mention but i'll quote for the "useful for Wikipedia to have an article":

    [Dr. Lamya Shahin, a physician who serves as director of outreach for Islamic Education Foundation] ended her talk with a discussion of the Muslim perspective on homosexuality, which drew heavily on the work of Ron Wyatt, the Biblical pseudoarchaeologist, best known for his “discovery” of Noah’s ark on Mount Ararat. Shahin presented detailed geological evidence (including satellite mapping and geochemical analysis) demonstrating that balls of sulphur and fire from nearby volcanic eruptions had destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. This, she said, proved scientifically that homosexuality was against the will of God and that gays and lesbians were evil...

  • Gierlowski-Kordesch, Elizabeth H. (1998). "Discovered Sodom and Gomorrah!". Biblical Archaeology Review. 24 (5): 60–62. on the above balls of sulphur and fire, general comments from the editors on Wyatt and a geologist invited to comment
  • "See Ark City?". News Sentinel. Knoxville, TN. August 17, 1997. most in depth news i've found out of a bunch of brief mentions, kind of shows the problem here, quotes John D. Morris for "...not accepted by those who've done the scientific work"
  • Levine, Haninah (September 8, 2003). "On the Trail of Jeremiah and the Smuggled Holy Ark". The Jerusalem Report. mostly on a 2003 dig by a Wyatt Archaeological Research foundation, but some comments on Wyatt's earlier work
  • Burnett, Thom, ed. (2005). ""God's Archeologist" Ron Wyatt". Conspiracy Encyclopedia: the encyclopedia of conspiracy theories. Collins & Brown. from fr:Ron Wyatt. Conspiracy Encyclopedia
  • Vitelli, Romeo (October 25, 2012). "The Indiana Jones Of Tennessee". James Randi Educational Foundation. blog, WP:PARITY
  • Lawler, Andrew (2021). Under Jerusalem : the buried history of the world’s most contested city. Doubleday. 8-10 paragraphs on Garden Tomb
  • Isaak, Mark (2007). The Counter-Creationism Handbook. University of California Press. couple entries for Durupınar and anchor stones, but lists for further reading sources i'd already rejected:
Thanks much for the generous compliment jps! I expect this will turn out like most others, can probably dredge up enough to meet notability but the real question is does anyone have the inclination, time, and ability to write the thing. fiveby(zero) 00:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proquest? Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ProQuest thru WP:Library, the links working for you? fiveby(zero) 12:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have added that I was including the newspaper search results as potential new references for improving the article. It is interesting how the essay WP:GHITS conflicts with the guideline WP:GTEST, which says "Notability – Decide whether a page should be nominated for deletion." 5Q5|✉ 12:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, WP:GTEST aka WP:Search engine test is a Wikipedia How-to-guide not a Guideline. 5Q5|✉ 10:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, most recent participants are arguing for a Keep but I would like to see a firmer consensus. It would be helpful to get a source review on recently found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mlaka Maliro

edit
Mlaka Maliro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Can't find sufficient sources to establish notability in any context. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart: in this case, subject had the album titled Dzanja Lalemba that was the bestseller 14 years ago countrywide. Subject is also the pioneer of Malawi Contemporary Music and one of the country's notable musician [2]https://mwnation.com/mlaka-soldier-set-for-stage-reunion/.
  2. Has released two or more albums on a major record label: subject has released 13 albums under the renowed and the first band in Malawi, the Zembani Band, owned by Lucius Banda [3]https://mwnation.com/mlaka-soldier-set-for-stage-reunion/, [4]https://mwnation.com/mlaka-rolls-back-hands-of-time/ . I found this that talks about subject. I also found records in printed books, see here, and this in Dutch , this too, etc. To me this provides GNG that can be used to sustain the article per WP:NEXIST.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

edit

Categories for discussion

edit

Miscellaneous

edit

References

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard&oldid=926383616"